Smith v. Superintendent

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, South Bend Division

January 7, 2015

JEREMY SMITH, Petitioner,v.SUPERINTENDENT, Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

PHILIP P. SIMON, District Judge.

Jeremy Smith, a pro se prisoner, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging two prison disciplinary proceedings resulting from the same underlying events. (DE 1.) In the first case, a hearing officer found Smith guilty possession of a cell phone. (DE 11-3.) And in the second case, Smith was found guilty of assault/battery upon another person with a weapon or inflicting serious bodily harm (DE 11-I), although it was later reduced to a lesser assault charge.

The charges were initiated on August 3, 2013, when Correctional Officer Yudina prepared two conduct reports related to the incident. Officer Yudina's Report of Conduct relating to the possession of a cell phone states:

On the above date and approx. time I ofc. V. Yudina was making a security round when I observed offender Smith, Jeremy 226623 talking on the cell phone in room 5. I ofc. V. Yudina gave him a direct order to give up the phone but offender Smith, J 226623 refused, he ran out of the room and fled to the rec yard.

On the above date and time, I ofc. V. Yudina, was doing rounds on RB when I saw offender Smith, Jeremy 226623 talking on a cell phone. I walked into the room and gave him an order to give me the phone. Offender refused. Instead he balled up his fists and in [an] aggressive manner walked towards me. I was reaching for my radio to call a signal when offender Smith pushed me out of the room into the hallway, causing me to hit my head and back against the wall in the hallway. Offender Smith started to flee down the hall towards Day Room. At that time I called Signal 7 and ran after him. When offender Smith 226623 turned the corner, I was able to spray 1 sec. burst of O.C. to his facial area. But offender still kept running towards outside Rec Yard.

(DE 11-G.)

On August 9, 2013, Smith was notified of the two charges when he was served with the conduct reports and the notices of disciplinary hearing. (DE 11-B, H.) On each notice, Smith was notified of his rights. He pled not guilty but did not request a lay advocate, and did not offer any witnesses or physical evidence. (DE 11-B, H.)

A hearing officer conducted the disciplinary hearings in both cases on August 16, 2013. (DE 11-C, I.) In the cell phone case, Smith provided the following statement:

I didn't have a cell phone. When she was walking I had my doo rag in one hand and the baggie of K2 in it. I didn't see or hear her coming. She called for back up/respond. She sprayed me. I went outside to get air. What could I have done with the cell phone. She was with me the whole time. (DE 11-C.) The hearing officer, relying on the conduct report and Smith's statement, found Smith guilty of possessing a cell phone. (DE 11-C.) The hearing officer imposed a 180-day deprivation of earned time credit, and a demotion from credit class 1 to credit class 2.

In the assault/battery case, Smith provided the following statement:

I never touched her. She is making that whole thing up. We were in room 15. She couldn't have hit her head. There's no wall there. I would not touch her. I think she was mad that I ran. I would not do nothing like that.

(DE 11-I.) The hearing officer, relying on the conduct report and Smith's statement, found Smith guilty of the charge of Class A offense 102, assault/battery upon another person with a weapon or inflicting serious bodily harm. (DE 11-I.) The hearing officer imposed a 365-day deprivation of earned time credit, and a demotion from credit class 2 to credit class 3.

Smith's appeals were denied and this petition followed. (DE 11-D, E, F, J, K, L.) On August 24, 2014, after this petition was filed, the DOC determined that Smith was guilty of a lesser assault/battery offense, Class B offense 212, because there was no weapon or serious injury involved. The sanction for the amended assault/battery offense was a reduction to a 90-day loss of ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.